Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Lloyd E. Whitt, Plaintiff/Appellant v. Cupples Products, H.H. Robertson Company, Defendant/Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Disposition

Affirmed

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Legal Help

Researching a similar employment law issue?

This archive page is for legal research. For a practical overview of claims, deadlines, evidence, and next steps, start with the related practice page.

Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Lloyd E. Whitt, Plaintiff/Appellant v. Cupples Products, H.H. Robertson Company, Defendant/Respondent. Case Number: 73013 Handdown Date: 05/12/1998 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Harry J. Nichols Counsel for Respondent: Maureen L. Cary Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Grimm, P.J., Pudlowski and Gaertner, J.J. Opinion: ORDER This is a workers' compensation case. Employee obtained an award from employer and the Second Injury Fund for a 1991 injury. Thereafter, employee sought to reopen the award against employer based on a change of medical condition. The Commission found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and affirmed the administrative law judge's decision dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. Employee appeals. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). Separate Opinion: None

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Rules

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

Kathryn Torre-Stewart, Appellant/Plaintiff, v. The Washington University-St. Louis, Respondent/Defendant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 24, 2026#ED113602

affirmed

The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's disability discrimination and hostile work environment claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act because she failed to plead facts demonstrating legal disability or a hostile work environment based on disability. However, the court reversed and remanded the retaliation claim, finding that plaintiff alleged sufficient facts establishing the elements of retaliation under the Act based on her complaints of disability discrimination.

Read The Employment Law GuideGuide
Civil Litigationper_curiam7,351 words
Read opinion